Mark D Tyson1, Daniel A Barocas. 1. Department of Urologic Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we highlight the use of clinical registries for quality improvement and research purposes in urology. We focus on national and regional clinical database registries, such as the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme, the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor, the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement collaborative and the American Urological Association Quality Registry programme. RECENT FINDINGS: It is widely known that claims-based and institutional databases are limited in their capacity to provide granular, real-time data for quality improvement purposes. As a result, clinical registries have emerged as an attractive alternative given their ability to capture large amounts of data across networks of health records. Another added benefit of Federally Qualified Clinical Data Registries (QCDRs) is the ability to meet emerging Medicare quality reporting standards, such as Physician Quality Reporting System and Meaningful Use. Despite the enthusiasm for QCDRs in the field of urology, however, myriad challenges remain in their implementation and widespread adoption including integration of existing health-information technology infrastructure, the accurate measurement of quality measures and the availability of clinically relevant quality measures in subspecialty practices. SUMMARY: Quality measurement and improvement have become important aspects of modern clinical practice. Advances in health information technology have ushered in new tools, such as clinical registries, which simultaneously improve the quality of scientific research and clinical care while assisting eligible professionals in meeting federally mandated reporting requirements.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review, we highlight the use of clinical registries for quality improvement and research purposes in urology. We focus on national and regional clinical database registries, such as the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme, the Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor, the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement collaborative and the American Urological Association Quality Registry programme. RECENT FINDINGS: It is widely known that claims-based and institutional databases are limited in their capacity to provide granular, real-time data for quality improvement purposes. As a result, clinical registries have emerged as an attractive alternative given their ability to capture large amounts of data across networks of health records. Another added benefit of Federally Qualified Clinical Data Registries (QCDRs) is the ability to meet emerging Medicare quality reporting standards, such as Physician Quality Reporting System and Meaningful Use. Despite the enthusiasm for QCDRs in the field of urology, however, myriad challenges remain in their implementation and widespread adoption including integration of existing health-information technology infrastructure, the accurate measurement of quality measures and the availability of clinically relevant quality measures in subspecialty practices. SUMMARY: Quality measurement and improvement have become important aspects of modern clinical practice. Advances in health information technology have ushered in new tools, such as clinical registries, which simultaneously improve the quality of scientific research and clinical care while assisting eligible professionals in meeting federally mandated reporting requirements.
Authors: Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; David Taub; Rodney L Dunn; Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; James E Montie; Willie Underwood; John T Wei Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; David A Taub; Rodney L Dunn; Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; James E Montie; Willie Underwood; John T Wei Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Stacie N Myers; Khurshid R Ghani; Rodney L Dunn; Brian R Lane; Edward W Schervish; Yuqing Gao; Susan M Linsell; David C Miller; James E Montie; James M Dupree Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-02-22 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Paul R Womble; Susan M Linsell; Yuqing Gao; Zaojun Ye; James E Montie; Tejal N Gandhi; Brian R Lane; Frank N Burks; David C Miller Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Lindsay A Hampson; Janet E Cowan; Shoujun Zhao; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Amy N Luckenbaugh; Gregory B Auffenberg; Scott R Hawken; Apoorv Dhir; Susan Linsell; Sanjeev Kaul; David C Miller Journal: J Urol Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: T M Morgan; S R Hawken; K R Ghani; D C Miller; F Y Feng; S M Linsell; J A Salisz; Y Gao; J E Montie; M L Cher Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Firas Abdollah; Zaojun Ye; David C Miller; Susan M Linsell; James E Montie; James O Peabody; Khurshid R Ghani Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 20.096